Attainment of guideline targets in EURODOPPS haemodialysis patients: are differences related to a country's healthcare expenditure and nephrologist workforce?

Background

In the field of chronic kidney disease, global clinical practice guidelines have been developed and implemented with a view to improving patient care and outcomes. The attainment of international and European guideline targets for haemodialysis patients in European countries has not been audited recently. Hence, we sought to establish whether the attainment of the targets set out in guidelines and inappropriate care are similar across European countries and whether inter-country differences are related to disparities in national healthcare expenditures (as a percentage of gross domestic product) and/or the nephrologist workforce per capita.

Methods

EURODOPPS is the European part of an international, prospective study of a cohort of adult, in-centre, haemodialysed patients. For the current project, 6317 patients from seven European countries were included between 2009 and 2011. Data on laboratory test results and medication prescriptions were extracted from patient records, in order to determine the overall percentage of patients treated according to the international guidelines on anaemia, dyslipidaemia, metabolic acidosis and mineral bone disease. Data related to macroeconomic indices were collected from World Health Organization database and World Bank stats.

Results

Attainment of the targets set in international guidelines was far from complete; only 34.1% of patients attained their target blood pressure and 31.2% attained their target haemoglobin level. Overall, only 5% of the patients attained all of the studied guideline targets. We observed marked inter-country differences in levels of guideline uptake/application and the use of pharmacological agents. The levels of national healthcare expenditures and nephrologist workforce were not correlated with the percentage of patients on-target for ≥50% of the studied variables or with inappropriate care (except for anaemia).

Conclusions

Our analysis of EURODOPPS data highlighted a low overall level of guideline target attainment in Europe and substantial differences between European countries. These inter-country differences did not appear to be linked to macroeconomic determinants.

Setting Priorities for Optimizing Vascular Access Decision Making--An International Survey of Patients and Clinicians

BACKGROUND

Many decisions around vascular access for haemodialysis warrant a collaborative treatment decision-making process, involving both clinician and patient. Yet, patients' experiences in this regard have been suboptimal. Although clinical practice guidelines could facilitate collaborative decision making, they often focus on the clinicians' side of the process, while failing to address the patients' perspective. The objective of this study was to explore and compare kidney patients' and clinicians' views on what vascular access-related decisions deserved priority for developing guidelines that will contribute to optimizing collaborative decision making.

METHODS

In the context of updating their vascular access guideline, European Renal Best Practice surveyed an international panel of 85 kidney patients, 687 nephrologists, 194 nurses, and 140 surgeons/radiologists. In an electronic questionnaire, respondents rated 42 vascular access-related topics on a 5-point Likert scale. Based on mean standardized ratings, we compared priority ratings between patients and each clinician group.

RESULTS

Selection of access type and site, as well as prevention of access infections received top priority across all respondent groups. Patients generally assigned higher priority to decisions regarding managing adverse effects of arteriovenous access and patient involvement in care, while clinicians more often prioritized decisions around sustaining patients' access options, technical aspects of access creation, and optimizing fistula maturation and patency.

CONCLUSION

Apart from identifying the most pressing knowledge gaps, our study provides pointers for developing guidelines that may improve healthcare professionals' understanding of when to involve patients along the vascular access pathway.

A survey on the methodological processes and policies of renal guideline groups as a first step to harmonize renal guidelines

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, several bodies produce renal guidelines, potentially leading to duplication of effort while other topics may remain uncovered. A collaborative work plan could improve efficiency and impact, but requires a common approved methodology. The aim of this study was to identify organizational and methodological similarities and differences among seven major renal guideline bodies to identify methodological barriers to a collaborative effort.

METHODS

An electronic 62-item survey with questions based on the Institute of Medicine standards for guidelines was completed by representatives of seven major organizations producing renal guidelines: the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN), European Renal Best Practice (ERBP), Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcome (KDIGO), Kidney Health Australia-Caring for Australians with Renal Insufficiency (KHA-CARI), Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (KDOQI), Sociedad Latino-Americano de Nefrologia e Hipertension (SLANH) and United Kingdom Renal Association (UK-RA).

RESULTS

Five of the seven groups conduct systematic searches for evidence, two include detailed critical appraisal and all use the GRADE framework. Five have public review of the guideline draft. Guidelines are updated as new evidence comes up in all, and/or after a specified time frame has passed (N = 3). Commentaries or position statements on guidelines published by other groups are produced by five, with the ADAPTE framework (N = 1) and the AGREEII (N = 2) used by some. Funding is from their parent organizations (N = 5) or directly from industry (N = 2). None allow funders to influence topic selection or guideline content. The budgets to develop a full guideline vary from $2000 to $500 000. Guideline development groups vary in size from <5 (N = 1) to 13-20 persons (N = 3). Three explicitly seek patient perspectives, for example, by involving patients in the scoping process, and four incorporate health economic considerations. All provide training in methodology for guideline development groups and six make their methods public. All try to avoid overlapping topics already planned or published by others. There is no common conflict of interest policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is considerable commonality in methods and approaches in renal guideline development by the different organizations, although some procedural differences remain. As the financial and human resource costs of guideline production are high, a collaborative approach is required to maximize impact and develop a sustainable work plan. Coming to consensus on methods and procedures is the first step and appears feasible.

Patients' perceptions of information and education for renal replacement therapy: an independent survey by the European Kidney Patients' Federation on information and support on renal replacement therapy

Background

Selection of an appropriate renal replacement modality is of utmost importance for patients with end stage renal disease. Previous studies showed provision of information to and free modality choice by patients to be suboptimal. Therefore, the European Kidney Patients’ Federation (CEAPIR) explored European patients’ perceptions regarding information, education and involvement on the modality selection process.

Methods

CEAPIR developed a survey, which was disseminated by the national kidney patient organisations in Europe.

Results

In total, 3867 patients from 36 countries completed the survey. Respondents were either on in-centre haemodialysis (53%) or had a functioning graft (38%) at the time of survey. The majority (78%) evaluated the general information about kidney disease and treatment as helpful, but 39% did not recall being told about alternative treatment options than their current one. Respondents were more often satisfied with information provided on in-centre haemodialysis (90%) and transplantation (87%) than with information provided on peritoneal dialysis (79%) or home haemodialysis (61%), and were more satisfied with information from health care professionals vs other sources such as social media. Most (75%) felt they had been involved in treatment selection, 29% perceived they had no free choice. Involvement in modality selection was associated with enhanced satisfaction with treatment (OR 3.13; 95% CI 2.72–3.60). Many respondents (64%) could not remember receiving education on how to manage their kidney disease in daily life. Perceptions on information seem to differ between countries.

Conclusions

Kidney patients reported to be overall satisfied with the information they received on their disease and treatment, although information seemed mostly to have been focused on one modality. Patients involved in modality selection were more satisfied with their treatment. However, in the perception of the patients, the freedom to choose an alternative modality showed room for improvement.

Qualitative research in CKD: an overview of methods and applications

There recently has been a paradigm shift in health care policies and research toward greater patient centeredness. A core tenet of patient-centered care is that patients' needs, values, and preferences are respected in clinical decision making. Qualitative research methods are designed to generate insights about patients' priorities, values, and beliefs. However, in the past 5 years (2008-2013), only 23 (0.4%) of the 6,043 original articles published in the top 5 nephrology journals (assessed by impact factor) were qualitative studies. Given this observation, it seems important to promote awareness and better understanding within the nephrology community about qualitative research and how the findings can contribute to improving the quality and outcomes of care for patients with chronic kidney disease. This article outlines examples of how qualitative research can generate insight into the values and preferences of patients with chronic kidney disease, provides an overview of qualitative health research methods, and discusses practical applications for research, practice, and policy.